ARC Population Change Forecasts (Atlanta, Lilburn: public schools, subdivisions, airport)

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by jsvh

As I am considering this, one thing to note is these are % growth numbers. Not raw growth numbers. 200% growth in midtown is a big difference from 200% growth in Canton.

WAIT...unless I'm on drugs, wasn't it you who preached to us about % rate of growth being the meaningful metric, not the absolute number of people because it supported the point you were trying to make that the city was growing faster than the suburbs?

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

Actually it is highly sustainable. You just don't like it. With as many jobs as there are in the suburbs it is easy. Local counties and the GDOT are paying for new roadway development, which is considerably cheaper than retrofits in existing suburban and intown areas.

this is a fascinating article that i think you should read:

The Growth Ponzi Scheme

[bryantm3]

the #1 thing i glean from this map is that the ARC needs to find someone who understands how to make maps. this map is terribly designed. the colour scheme doesn't make any sense. the categories don't make any sense. whoever designed this map had no idea what they were doing.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Sure there is room to build stuff. But the funding sources that built the interstate system are drying up and drivers don't want to pick up the tab.

Even by ARC's own graphs, the direction things are shifting is clear, growth is shifting to the core:


Source: http://documents.atlantaregional.com...s_main2014.pdf

Umm.... so you're evidence is a graph showing that the overwhelming amount of total growth is outside the city of Atlanta?

And that is only the 10 county area and leaves out many of Metro Atlanta's faster growing exurban counties that are in the original posted map...

Smart


You got to stop making this a whole urban vs suburban thing. You and a few others are cheerleading one side of the fence so much you're ignoring too many trends going on throughout the whole region, not just the city's core. Perhaps, this is why a map based on data, trends, zoning does not support your initial thoughts.

You also can't rely on future interstate funding within our nation only to gauge future suburban growth. Most growth is occuring from tangible jobs in the suburbs and interstates aren't nessecary for many to live in work. This is stuck in a 1950s-70s mentality where people only move into suburbs to commute into the city center, which is long obsolete at this point in Atlanta. Forsyth does not have immediate interstate access, only a smaller and lower-funded state freeway and they are growing really fast. There is an arterial road network and accessibility to jobs in Duluth, Buford, Johns Creek, and the North Point area that can not be ignored. Growth has been very strong in this area and adjacent areas.

During the late 90s and the early 2000 the avg commute distance in the region has decreased. This has to do with suburban commuter patterns, not long-range suburban-city commutes requiring interstates.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

this is a fascinating article that i think you should read:

The Growth Ponzi Scheme

Bryant,

Believe me I am much more read into things than you would believe.

There are limits based to outward infrastructure growth with the premise that people are only commuting the city's core.

That is debatable. The problem is many public interest groups choosing sides come to their own conclusions or values on what should or should not be done. What they believe is not necessarily the end all-be all.

This is really stuck in the 1950s-70s mentality on what suburban growth is and should be.

Current regional trends, zoning, growth policy, and infrastructure policy is designed to maintain many job centers and to put more money into key corridors. This is not for suburb to city commute, but to increase a balance of job access to living accommodations region-wide. As with anything there is a balance of pros and cons to this, but it is working so far and it why trends continually show growth that exists.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

the #1 thing i glean from this map is that the ARC needs to find someone who understands how to make maps. this map is terribly designed. the colour scheme doesn't make any sense. the categories don't make any sense. whoever designed this map had no idea what they were doing.

I agree. It was awful and very hard to read. It makes it look like areas are emptying out when that's not the case.

[ATLJR]

Why would you have a range that stands for negative growth and positive growth? Seems odd. Perhaps whoever took these screenshots choose those ranges, but why? They seem very poorly thought out. In fact, all the ranges are poorly thought out. Roughly 100% growth up to 300% growth? What's the point of predicting at that point? It offers nothing of value. "Oh, this area of 50,000 residents might see an increase of anything between 50,000 to 150,000 residents." That doesn't offer any insight into future planning. My assumption is those ranges were defined by the user. I'm also not sure why you wouldn't have some standard. The blue encompasses a range of roughly 13%, the next category 17%, and then it gets much larger from there.

Regardless, what I find interesting is that highly populated areas in town along the connector are predicted to see anywhere from 95% to 300% population growth. It seems most of the blue areas are established, SFH neighborhoods who probably won't see much densification.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by neil0311

WAIT...weren't we being preached to that the suburbs are not growing as fast as the "urban core" or something like that?

I'm not the smartest guy in town, but that map seems to indicate the exact opposite.

This map is horribly produced. The cartographer needs to be fired.

[jsvh]

cwkimbro & neil0311 - Don't think anyone is denying that the suburbs as a whole have a much larger share of the metro population today. But they are a much much larger area than the core. Hence my comment. Even at a raw number level, 30,000 new people in midtown is very different from 30,000 new people in Douglas County.

Now are you both denying the very real trend of raw growth slowing in the suburbs and accelerating in the city of a YoY basis? Do you think it is just a fluke and everyone will start fleeing the city for the suburbs again next year?

[hautemomma]

Originally Posted by jsvh

cwkimbro & neil0311 - Don't think anyone is denying that the suburbs as a whole have a much larger share of the metro population today. But they are a much much larger area than the core. Hence my comment. Even at a raw number level, 30,000 new people in midtown is very different from 30,000 new people in Douglas County.

Now are you both denying the very real trend of raw growth slowing in the suburbs and accelerating in the city of a YoY basis? Do you think it is just a fluke and everyone will start fleeing the city for the suburbs again next year?

Sometimes you've gotta relinquish your hellbent subjectivity in order to look more objectively at the facts.

The suburbs are neither dying nor going away. If anything, in many suburbs urbanization is anticipated or in full swing (see or research the urbanization of the suburbs, especially in regards to development approaches and population demographics [becoming more diverse than the gentrified "urban core" - isn't Gwinnett a great representation of that factor?]).

I like the city, really, I do. I like the energy itself and the architecture of older, well-preserved (or renovated) homes.

But I'm not so obtuse as to think that 5 million of the Metro Atlanta residents who live around the 500,000 in the city are all craving to move to the city center and are losing out (or losers) if they don't. Like many of them, I also enjoy square-footage, low crime, proximity to all of my daily and non-daily needs/wants and highly ranked public schools.